High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-07-17Disposed of; interim custody conditions modifie...

Joby Paul v. The State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRMC.3995 of 2014

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Ramakrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2014-07-17
Court Decision / Holding: The court disposes of CRMC 3995/2014 by modifying the interim custody conditions: deposit of 10% of the vehicle’s value (₹39,500) and a bond for the balance (₹3,55,500) with two solvent sureties, retaining the other conditions. The vehicle is to be released pending completion of confiscation proceedings. The order directs communication to the lower court and to furnish a copy to the petitioner’s counsel. The case is disposed of with these modifications.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; interim custody conditions modified as described; vehicle to be released during confiscation proceedings; other conditions retained.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Joby Paul

Respondents

The State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri T. Madhu
• Smt. C. R. Saradamani

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor P. Maya

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the interim custody order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in CMP No.5900/2014 in Crime No.29/2014 of Rajapuram Police Station under the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. The JFCM granted interim custody of a seized vehicle KL-16-F/6631 subject to conditions: deposit 30% of the vehicle’s value, a bank guarantee for the balance, a bond for the balance with original title deed, valuation certificate, Panj-nama, original RC and insurance, and a duty to produce the vehicle for confiscation proceedings. The petitioner contends these conditions are improper in light of Section 23A introduced by Amendment Act XV/2013 and argues custody could be secured by bond alone, as per other Kerala decisions. The State opposes the challenge, maintaining that the court has discretion to impose conditions and that no illegality occurred. The Kerala High Court cites the amendments and Aboobacker v. State of Kerala to emphasize liberal construction of security and ends of justice. It then modifies the order, directing deposit of 10% of the value (₹39,500) and a bond for the balance (₹3,55,500) with two solvent sureties, keeping other conditions intact, and holds that release of the vehicle can continue during confiscation proceedings. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of CrPCSection 457 of CrPCProtection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001Section 23A of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (as amended by Amendment Act XV/2013)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

liberally construed
ends of justice

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the interim custody conditions imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg, under the amended Act (Section 23A) are improper, particularly the requirement to deposit 30% of the vehicle’s value and to furnish a bank guarantee for the balance. The counsel submits that custody can be secured by a bond alone, as per other Kerala cases, and urges liberal construction of security to meet ends of justice. He seeks modification of the order to reflect a 10% deposit with a bond for the balance and release of the vehicle during confiscation proceedings, consistent with post-amendment jurisprudence.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor argues there is no illegality in the order; the court has discretion to impose reasonable conditions under the Act and CrPC, and the lower court’s order complied with Section 23A. He asserts the petitioner cannot claim a right to instant release and that custody should be conditioned under existing statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shan v. State of Kerala	2010 (3) KLT 413	Mentioned Only	Cited as a prior decision relied upon by the lower court; the present judgment does not explicitly adopt or overrule its principles.
Sujith v. State of Kerala	2012 (2) KLT 547	Mentioned Only	Cited as part of the lower court’s reasoning; the current decision does not expressly apply or distinguish its holdings.
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala	2014 (3) KLT 26	Positive	relied upon to support liberal construction of security and partial deposit, influencing the modification to 10% deposit and bond mechanism.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joby Paul v. The State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2014/26TH ASHADHA, 1936** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3995 of 2014** **--------------------------CMP NO.5900/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I,HOSDURG CRIME NO. 29/2014 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION , KASARAGOD** **....** **PETITIONER:** **--------------------------** **JOBY PAUL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, RESIDING AT KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, BELLUR, PARAKLAYI P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI** **RESPONDENT/STATE:** **----------------------------------------** **THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAPURAMPOLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTEDBY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **Crl.MC.No. 3995 of 2014** **------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURE:** **-------------------------------------------** **ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2014 IN C.M.P NO.5900/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT - I, HOSDURG.** **RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------------Crl. M.C. No.3995 of 2014 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of July, 2014 ## O R D E R This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, in C.M.P.No.5900/2014 in Crime No.29/2014 of Rajapuram police station, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-16-F/6631, which was seized by the respondent on the allegation that the vehicle was used for transporting river sand in violation of the provisions of the Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and a crime was registered under the Act. The petitioner filed C.M.P.No.5900/2014 before the Judicial First Class CRMC.3995/ 2014 2 Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg, for interim custody of the vehicle. The learned magistrate by Annexure-AI order granted interim custody on conditions inter-alia that: 1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for ₹ 3,95,000/-. 2. Petitioner has to deposit 1,18,500/- 30% of₹ the total value of the vehicle. 3. The petitioner shall produce the bank guarantee or execute a bond for 2,76,500/- for the₹ balance amount with original title deed and valuation certificate showing value of the property issued by revenue authority. 4. The petitioner shall produce Panjanama 5. The petitioner shall produce original RC and insurance of the vehicle for verification. 6. The petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle as and when required for the confiscation proceedings. The above conditions are being challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition. 3. Considering the nature of relief claimed in the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. CRMC.3995/ 2014 3 4. Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact the condition imposed by the court below is not proper in view of inclusion of Section '23A' to the above said Act by Amendment Act XV/2013 which came into force from 25.11.2013. Further this court in another case granted custody by executing a bond alone. 6. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that, there is no illegality in the order passed. A discretion has been given to the court to impose any condition. 7. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle with No. KL-16-F/6631, which belongs to the petitioner was seized by the police, alleging that it was used for the commission of the offence under the above said Act. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner filed an application for interim custody under Section 457 of the Code of CRMC.3995/ 2014 4 Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by AnnexureAI order with the above said conditions. 8. Condition Nos. 1 to 3 are being challenged by the petitioner now. It appears that, the learned magistrate had, keeping in mind the decision of this court in **Shan V. State of Kerala (2010 (3) KLT 413)** and **Sujith V. State of Kerala (2012 (2) KLT 547),** imposed these conditions and the present Section 23A, which has been incorporated by Amendment Act XV/2013, which came into force with effect from 25.11.2013 has not been taken note of by the court below. 9. After the above decisions, the Act has been amended by incorporating Section 23A, which deals with the procedure to be followed after confiscation, and also power of the court for giving interim custody. This court has considered that provision in **(2014 (3) KLT 26) Aboobacker v. State of Kerala** , wherein this court has held that: “The security mentioned therein, has to be CRMC.3995/ 2014 5 liberally construed and a portion of the amount can be directed to be deposited and for the balance amount, the personal bond with sureties can be directed to be executed and that will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice”. 10. In view of the dictum laid down in the above decision, the conditions imposed by the court below, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% value of the vehicle and furnish bank guarantee for the balance amount is set aside and the same is modified as follows: The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the value assessed by the Motor Vehicle Department and also execute a bond for the balance amount with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of that court will be sufficient and that will meet the ends of justice. So condition Nos. 1 to 3 imposed by the court below are set aside and the same is modified, retaining the other conditions and those conditions are modified as follows: The petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the CRMC.3995/ 2014 6 value assessed for the vehicle, namely ₹39,500/- and execute a bond for the balance amount of 3,55,500/- with₹ two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. Further, the release of the vehicle will be till the completion of confiscation proceedings under this Act. Other conditions imposed by the court below is retained. With the above modification of the conditions imposed, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court and also hand over a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner to produce the same before the court below. Sd/- ## **K. Ramakrishnan, Judge** // True Copy// P.A. to Judge ss